Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:13PM
from the pack-your-bags dept.

An anonymous reader writes "London's Metropolitan Police have delivered an 'Extradition Notice' to Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, who sought refuge and political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London last week. Scotland Yard have said in a brief statement that 'the notice requires Julian Assange to attend a police station of our choosing at a set time.' SY also said, 'This is standard procedure in extradition cases and is the first step in the removal process. He remains in breach of his bail conditions and failure to surrender would be a further breach of those conditions and he is liable to arrest.' However, under international diplomatic arrangements, the British Metropolitan Police cannot actually go into the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Mr Assange. Assange would have to leave the embassy to be lawfully arrested. This raises the following question of course: Is this the 'endgame' for Julian Assange as far as extradition is concerned? If the Ecuadorians fail to grant Assange political asylum, which is a possibility, will he be arrested by Metropolitan Police, and sent to Sweden to stand trial for two alleged counts of 'rape?' Will Sweden then hand Assange over to the United States, where many well known and quite senior politicians have publicly stated that they think 'Assange should be punished severely' for publishing confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on Wikileaks?"

The article talks about "standing trial" in Sweden - where charges have not even been filed against him. "Extradition for inquiry" by a judge does not met a recognised standard for extradition, and the British justices tortured the statutes and precedent to accomplish their writ.

The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.

Given the UK's extradition treaty with the US basically hands over our sovereign rights to the US with ridiculously low standards for extradition why would it make any sense to extradite him to Sweden first? Not only that but, under the terms of the European arrest warrant the UK would have to agree to let Sweden extradite him to the US.

At the same time if Sweden wants to just interview him why not send a couple of officers over to the UK, talk to him and if he is not convincing then extradite him to face charges? However this I can put down to incompetence/bureaucratic stupidity. The US concerns I think are just Assange's over active imagination. I'm sure the US wants to get him but they could do that far more easily in the UK than Sweden.

In Sweden, the US only needs to request a "temporary transfer", which, if approved by the Swedish police, will send Assange on a plane and to the US on the presumption that someday he'll be back to face charges in Sweden as well. Unlike the UK, there is no court in the way. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden [wikipedia.org]

If the US really wanted him they would already have him. The US government has already shown they really don't give a shit about him. He is not worth the bother. The guy is publicity hound so why oblige his narcissism and give him a bigger pulpit to preach his gospel? They got the person who allegedly stole the data off military computers which is clearly a civilian and military crime. The most Assange could have every really been charged with is receipt of stolen property. If it had been data stolen from the Russians and most likely China Assange would have already suffered some kind of fatal accident.

Lets correct some errors here that are running amok on Slashdot every time this comes up.

1) The Swedish legal system cannot file charges in absentia [fairtrials.net]. They *have* to bring him to Sweden, question him again in person (whether or not they think any more information will come of it), and only *then* can they legally file charges against him.

2) The Prime Minister of Sweden has stated explicitly that in accordinace with European extradition law the UK would have to approve any further extradition request, so yes, it's an extremely strained argument to suggest that the UK, who extradites people to the US at the drop of a hat, is a safer place to be than Sweden.

3) The lower British court found (and higher court upheld) that not only is there probable reason to suspect that Assange broke Swedish law, but that the same acts would be criminal in the UK as well. It's not "rape" (with sarcastic quotation marks), as in the Slashdot summary. It's rape, no quotation marks.

4) Assange is not being charged with "sex without a condom", and anyone who repeats that lie is deliberately trying to distort the situation. Here's the actual accusations [guardian.co.uk]:

The allegations centre on a 10-day period after Assange flew into Stockholm on Wednesday 11 August. One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip to Sweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.

Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.

That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, "Monica", later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

And perhaps I'm a super-intelligent puffin, the result of an Icelandic mind-control experiment gone horribly wrong, posting on Slashdot by typing with my beak. But all issues of "perhaps" aside, how likely are we to believe that that is actually the case, that the British lower court and the high court both came to the same conclusion but either don't know or are deliberately bypassing British law for nefarious purposes, while at the same time a random Slashdotter is a true UK law expert?

If you had to put your money on one of those options - that either I'm really a super-intelligent puffin or that two separate British courts (one of which is the supreme court) are either ignorant of British law or part of some shadowy conspiracy to bypass it and that the random Slashdotter is a Queen's Council Barrister - I'd recommend on betting on the puffin option.

Given the UK's extradition treaty with the US basically hands over our sovereign rights to the US with ridiculously low standards for extradition why would it make any sense to extradite him to Sweden first?

Because extradition from the UK requires you to be accused of a crime and the USA can't come up with one.

Extradition from Sweden doesn't require a crime, they can send you to the USA for 'questioning' (with zero paperwork, too - double win!)

At the same time if Sweden wants to just interview him why not send a couple of officers over to the UK, talk to him and if he is not convincing then extradite him to face charges? However this I can put down to incompetence/bureaucratic stupidity.

Good question. I remember reading that Assange was more than happy to talk to a Swedish investigator in the UK, either by one coming to him, or via video link. For some reason the Swedish investigators did not want to do this.

"Some reason" is that a suspect has to be in Swedish custody to have charges filed against them, by Swedish law. There are limited exceptions, but they don't apply in this case.

Assange's attorneys are doing their darndest to try to make this into some giant international conspiracy, but this is the way the extradition process works. He'll go to Sweden (and yes, he will eventually; even if Ecuador approves his asylum bid, he has no means to get from the Ecuadorian embassy to the country, so he'd be facing life inside an embassy building in the UK as his alternative, which probably isn't all that much better than a Swedish prison - can't even get proper healthcare or other basic needs there). He'll be taken in for questioning. He'll remain in jail (Sweden isn't as big on bail, and Assange has clearly shown that he's a flight risk) until the trial. He'll go to trial. Odds are, given the evidence against him and that the two courts reviewing it have already found it credible, he'll be convicted. His sentence will be up to four years. He'll then walk.

Sweden can't just change it's codified laws and procedures just because some guy is paranoid. Maybe it's not the way the UK and US do things but it is their legal system. Now if this was some dictatorship on the human rights watch list with the non-English legal system then you might have a point. However this is a member of the EU and which has treaties with the UK.

Every single time one of these stories comes up people keep pointing out how Swedish law is not like English law. Stop being so parochial and xenophobic.

The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

I thought that at first, but now I'm not so sure. As others have said, there's a very one-sided extradition treaty in place between the UK and the US; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US could have had him sent directly to them.

But... even if the US were to get hold of Assange, there's a good chance they'd have a hard time proving he did anything wrong. And regardless of the outcome of any court case, the US can't possibly come out of it looking good.

If Assange is found guilty - a man who has demonstrated an amazing ability to garner publicity has just become a political prisoner in a supposedly first-world country. If he dies in prison, he's a political martyr.

If he's found not guilty, a situation that's already embarrassing becomes considerably more embarrassing. Not only can the US not keep secret documents secret, they can't do much about it if those secrets leak.

Better, then, not to extradite him to the US at all. But how to deal with all these embarrassing documents - and ensure that any future leaks in don't wind up with a similar result? Arranging for Assange to mysteriously commit suicide may satisfy a human need for vengeance, but risks making Wikileaks look like a credible source for future leaks and ensures that quite a few investigative journalists will start to do some serious digging through the leaked documents (which are mostly pretty boring, benign bureaucratic stuff).

So, what to do? Well, Assange has become the human face of Wikileaks. Discredit the human face, and with any luck the organisation will suffer with it. And the best bit from the US perspective is that Assange is playing right into their hands. Assange's reaction to these allegations has been:

- To remain associated with Wikileaks rather than publicly resign and pass the reigns over to someone else.
- To move hell and high water to avoid extradition to Sweden.

The US doesn't need to do anything more. If Assange's request for political asylum is granted, he's a man on the run from rape charges - his credibility (and by extension that of Wikileaks) is shot to hell. If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he'll doubtless be charged. Whatever happens after that point, his credibility is equally shot to hell.

These are not trivial charges. He's accused of pinning someone down sexually until she consented to sex with a condom to avoid sex without the condom, then deliberately breaking the condom, then continually making sexual advances on the person later, and with another woman, having sex with her while she slept, in violation of the terms of consent she had had when awake (usage of a condom) (not that a sleeping person can consent in *any* circumstances). Two British courts have found the charges against him credible.

Yes, the use of Interpol is of course selective. But that's what Interpol is used for, going after high-profile cases and especially cases deemed to be high risk of international flight. Assange fits the typical Interpol target to a tee.

I don't know what constitution you've been reading, but it's not the Interpol one.

Interpol's constitution states that their function is: "To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities..."

ie. They act as go-betweens when more than one police force is investigating something. They provide interpreters/translators, make sure everybody has access to all the evidence, etc. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol#Methodology [wikipedia.org] )

If only one police force is involved in an investigation (eg. the Swedes) then why does Interpol need to get inv

Maybe in your eyes mate. I, and a lot of other Australians I know, still hold him in the highest regard. He has been sticking it to the man (not just the US interestingly, Wiki-leaks have and will publish leaks from wherever they get them) and I hope he continues to do so from Ecuador.

First, let's correct the record here. The accusations aren't that he "did stuff during consensual sex". They're that he pinned down the first woman in a sexual manner trying to have sex without a condom, she consented conditionally on him using one to try to avoid unprotected sex, that he broke the condom anyway, and later continued trying to have sex with her on other occasions (she described the event that night to friends as "violent" sex, and that she didn't feel safe around him; she eventually moved out of her own apartment until he left). According to the accusations, with the other woman began in a fully consensual manner. He declined sex the first because she insisted on using a condom (according to her and other witnesses such as her ex-boyfriend of several years, she had never had sex in her life without a condom). Later he reluctantly agreed to sex with a condom. However, she went to sleep and woke up finding him having unprotected sex with her (not only in violation of the previous terms of consent, but also, a sleeping person simply cannot consent).

Not only are the accusations illegal in Sweden, but the British courts found them as credible charges in the UK as well.

Secondly, however - and the main reason for my reply - is this:

The ladies only pressed charges after they'd met each other.

As someone who's actually been raped, you have no idea how offensive this notion that's circulating around is. Do you have any idea how hard it is to tell someone you've been raped? To even be willing to use that word to yourself? It took me about three months before I stopped using euphomisms like "unwanted sexual activity" or even "I've had friends tell me I should call it rape" (to avoid having to use the label myself). You don't want to see yourself as a victim and you don't want to empower the perpetrator, and there's almost always blurry lines (in my case, for example, I at one point consented to other sexual activity conditional on him stopping trying to get inside of me... he went back on his word, though).

At first it seems like something that you can just brush off and keep going. A bad night. Over with, in the past. It's only when it starts to affect your life that you have to accept that it's not that simple (in my case, freaking out on a phone call with a person whose voice I couldn't be sure who it was, for example). Most rape victims (myself included) *never* file charges. Because we know what a nightmare it can be, to go through that. I can't even imagine having to go through what these woman are going through with millions of people smearing them so viciously (without even knowing the actual accusations) simply because they like Assange. It must be a living hell.

Perhaps the charges won't be upheld. Rape prosecutions have a pathetic conviction rate anyway, due to the nature of the crime. But that's what trials are for.

And as for the rest:

Assange offered help to the authorities and was allowed to leave the country.

He was only questioned in regards to one of the women, some sources say he promised to return, and regardless, charges can only be filed directly after questioning on Swedish soil.

The investigation was dropped by the Swedish prosecutor. Then another prosecutor replaced the former prosecutor and reinstated the investigation

Which isn't at all unusual. There's nothing in the world unusual about A) different prosecutors having different views on a case,or B) views changing as time goes on and new evidence / statements / etc come to light. In any country. But yes, Assange's attorneys are doing their best to try to spin it into a conspiracy.

and even issued a red Interpol warrant to get him for questioning, even though such warrants are reserved for criminals of serious crimes.

Seeking protection in Ecuador against the Swedish legal system!!! That's a laugh. Ecuador president Correa is the main competitor to his best friends Chavez and Castro in maintaining his power by constantly bashing the USA and blaming the West for all his country's problems, intimidating and imprisoning journalists who oppose him and implementing idiotic populist socialist policies. I suppose a natural ally for Assange.

"There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."

Where did you get the strange idea that he was charged because he told a girl she was pretty?

Uhhh...one of them went out and bought him breakfast while his ass slept the sleep of the well fucked in her bed. Sorry for my being crude folks but think about that JUST for a second, will ya? Your RAPIST is sleeping soundly in YOUR BED and you....buy him breakfast?

I'm sorry but I am smelling big heaping loads of bullshit. He royally pissed off someone in those leaks, and now they are gonna do whatever they have to to make sure his ass gets hung out to dry. all these saying "Well nobody is gonna use Wikileaks anyway herp derp" seem to be missing the fucking point which is HE IS TO BE AN EXAMPLE to make damned sure nobody else has the balls to stand up to those that sit on the thrones of power. Frankly I'm surprised he hasn't "had a car accident" and probably the only reason he hasn't is someone is pissed enough they don't just want him gone, they want to make sure nobody is stupid enough to ever publish jack shit they don't want published again.

If he has charges against him, then he should go and fight those charges in court.

Unless something has changed in the last day or so, he doesn't have charges against him.

Before he left the country he asked if he was required for any questioning, and was told that he wasn't and was free to leave the country. So he did. Then someone else took over the case and asked him for him back.

he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."

Oh shit. I hope my wife doesn't read that. She finds out that stuff is illegal, I'm done for. I'm too old to do time.

The claims were investigated, and the case closed. No charged filed. Then years later, right after the big leak, the case was mysteriously reopened. I don't usually go for the concpiracy theories, but something like that is a bit much to attribute to coincidence - it does look like something was going on out of the public eye to make it happen.

Some of you need to talk to some women about how they would feel if a guy did that to them. Your idea of what constitutes rape is outdated if you feel it must be a violent attack where a man forces himself inside a woman. The thing that makes it rape is the violation, not the thing used to violate.

I suspect pretty much every victim of real rape on the planet would feel rather insulted at the suggestion that the term should cover a much wider range of offenses. If the charges are legitimate it sounds like Assange is guilty of being an ass, and depending on the particulars possibly of assault and/or sexual harassment. Calling it rape though is rather akin to getting charged with murder for getting into a brawl where no one was seriously injured.

Sometimes things happen and people get offended, frightened, even hurt. That's life, it's not all seetness and light, shit happens. You dust yourself off and move on. It may well be desirable to discourage people from inflicting such discomfort on others, but lumping such acts together with those that cause lasting damage doesn't help anything.

And we call fingering someone against their will (if there is penetration involved) rape.

However, having sex without a condom when you told someone that they only want to have sex with you with a condom is definitely breaking the terms of engagement since it puts a risk of pregnancy and stds into the picture.Which fundamentally changes the act.

Of course it's blown WAY out of proportion.

And, no, most real victims of rape (not violent attack rape that is but the domestic kind which is BY FAR the most common type) I've actually talked to are very, very sensitive to all types of sexual abuse and won't condone any of it since they know how vulnerable you are.Just like people who have been physically abused are way more sensitive about even "friendly" physical fights.

I believe their point was that Julian Assange had full penetrative sex with these women. But there is no charge of full penetrative rape being levelled against him; he is being charged with "molesting by holding his erect penis up against her". So the question is- if the actual sex wasn't criminal, how can the foreplay be? Or if the sex was consensual, are we sure the foreplay wasn't (and would the distinction have been clear to the accused)?

It'd be like storming into someone's house with a gun, beating them up, and stealing all their money; and the crime that gets levelled against you is "wearing a face mask in a public place". It doesn't make sense that a lesser crime is being accused, but not the more obvious serious crime.

Not any more, Wikileaks has been shown to be a quite amateurish organization, so its doubtful leakers will be emailing Assange in the future, and he's burned all his bridges with journalists. It's also quite obvious (to the non-wingnuts), he's going to spend a couple years in a comfy humane Swedish jail while the MSM & halfwit politicians forget all about him.

Even if you don't agree with the laws of a nation, you should follow them. If you are not prepared to do so, then you should not visit the nation. The only exception to this is when you disobey the law in civil protest.

He stands accused of "rape", but the term itself varies from country to country and across translations. In this case, afaik, two women consented to protected sex with him under specific conditions. Those conditions changed and consent was withdrawn, yet he continued. Think about it for a minute. If the woman says "stop" and you don't, then it most certainly is a form of rape. Perhaps you have no respect for women and thus consider it ok to continue after that point, but most jurisdictions in the West do not. The labelling of the crime may differ, but this is generally not allowed so there is no reason to denigrate the Swedish legal system on account of this.

Assange's work with Wikileaks, despite sometimes being apparently motivated by his egomania, is overall for the greater good. Governments argue that airing their dirty laundry for all to see places people in danger and threatens the national interest. They need to be taught that they are responsible for perpetrating such actions in the first place. For that reason, I hope that Assange will not be extradited to the US where he will face an increasingly unfair political process.

Despite that, his work does note give him a carte blanche to do whatever he wants. The fact that you would dismiss all accusations against him without even hearing the evidence shows that you think some people should be above the law. That attitude threatens society as a whole. Double standards for people based on how much you like them personally is not acceptable in a legal context.

Maybe there is a conspiracy to get him extradited to the US through Sweden. Maybe there isn't. Maybe he just doesn't want to pay for what he did to those girls because he doesn't think it's a big deal and, like you, doesn't respect the laws of sovereign host nations. We'll probably never know because there are so many other factors involved. I understand that modern media have taught most of us to view things in black and white, but please try to understand that this situation is much more nuanced than that. Maybe it makes your brain hurt to consider all of the different aspects, but the least you can do is try before making ignorant posts with simplistic opinions.

Come on. This has been talked about everywhere. You can't possibly be unaware by now that what you describe ("consent was withdrawn, yet he continued") is not even alleged by the prosecutors.

And come on again. You can't possibly not know that this entire affair is because of the conspiracy to extradite from Sweden. The "crime" he committed isn't even a prison offense. It's not that he "doesn't want to pay for what he did to those girls" as you put it - girls which by the way, praised him in a party following the "rape", and by the way, were even unaware they've been "raped" until the nice prosecutor told them so.

I'm not sure what your angle is, but you are woefully misinformed and misinforming to be accidental.

My understanding is that they did not object after the conditions changed, but that he agreed to the conditions but didn't satisfy them. They didn't say "stop" They said "go" and he did. They later claimed that had they known he was sleeping with other women, they wouldn't have consented, which is the same as if they had not consented and he forced himself on them.

He lied. They consented. He didn't force himself on anyone. After everything was done, they revoked their consent, and the previous act

It is apparent that you haven't actually read the charges or the complaint. He started in both cases with things that most civilized countries consider rape or some other crime. Unless you think it's appropriate that I walk up to your sister/wife/mother and hold them down, use my legs to forcefully spread theirs and then start pressing my penis against them. In what country is that legal? As the UK judges said, the fact that later they agreed to have consentual sex with a condom does not make the first act legal. In some countries saying you are going to use a condom, but then don't is illegal (apparently not in the UK). And again, in most countries, if the man purposely breaks the condom and the woman says stop, and he does not, that is illegal (again, apparently not in the UK). And waking a sleeping woman you has already said she doesn't want to have sex with you by initiating sex before they are fully awake, and not stopping when she says so, is illegal in almost every civilized country, including the UK.

Christ, the fascists are hard at modding down in this one. Take note of how anything supportive of Assange gets the mod-hammer. Isn't it ironic, that America, land of the free, where freedom of the press is suppose to have it's home, are being complete draconian imperial jackasses at someone exercising a free press? This whole "sex scandal" smells so fucking trumped up it's sickening. We did the same thing to the IMF chief who was here to confirm if Ft Knox still had any gold left in it. The sex scandal pla

Seem like he stayed there until they said it was ok to go.
"Assange has made himself available to the Swedish prosecution from the beginning: he stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks waiting to be interrogated, and left Sweden after asking permission to do so from the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny (which she granted)."
http://justice4assange.com/Investigation.html [justice4assange.com]

Would you bet your life on the fact that there is no US extradition move in place the moment he sets his foot on Swedish soil?

Could be a conspiracy theory, could be unlikely, but would you bet your life on it?

That's what Assange would be doing. Very easy to say "just go and clear your name and that will be the end of it". Not nearly so easy if it's your life on the line.

I'd rather have some people thinking I look guilty fighting extradition, than get to Sweden and immediately be placed on a flight to the USA (or worse). It's not like there is a way out of it by that stage.

He's being charged in Sweden, not in the US, and he is almost certainly not going to face US charges. As much as officials want to bluster, charging him with something related to the leaks would implicate a bunch of major newspapers in the US and the UK. So they won't do it, and the charges wouldn't stick anyways.

Australia may bend over for the US, but not in this case, for two good reasons:

1. The extradition treaty between Australia and the US would not allow Assange to be extradited in these circumstances (and while the government may do whatever the US tells them to do, the High Court is unlikely to, and make no mistake, that is where this will end up)

2. The political backlash domestically would be considerable. Extraditing an Australian citizen to the US for something that isn't a crime under Australian law and that didn't actually occur in the US? Would be pretty easy to kick up a massive media fuss about that I think.

it seems to be the kettle with plenty dirty laundry airing the pot's dirty laundry.

I certainly hope you don't expect your world 'heros' to be squeaky clean - if you do then all I can say is that you're more brainwashed than you might think.

His work? What do you mean? What change has happened as a result of his work?

Here your ignorance and short-sightedness is exposed for all who can see to see. As a product of your own society and upbrining, you expect fantastical, magical results from the small flash of time that Wikileaks had. You expect big, outwardly visible changes. How blissfully ignorant you are.

You should very well know that our society is wrapped in cotton wool, that we are 'guided' as to what we should think, what should be considered socially acceptable and that we are given little room to think badly of our governments. Dislike them? Oh, yes. Do anything about it? Absolutely not!

Do you know what? For the first time in decades, an independent organisation awoke people everywhere to the often horrific actions taken by our governments (on our behalf, remember). For just but a second, peoples eyes were torn from their soap operas and hypno-toad shows and injected with a sudden sense of reality. People were outraged! People sided with the philosophical viewpoint of Wikileaks, that our governments that act on our behalf should be transparent - that corruption and lies should be exposed.

Within a few months though, Wikileaks was hamstrung by the full force of entire governments bending every extent of their control to their needs, its flawed public figure was effectively smeared and demonised and the public that was once behind the organisation was coaxed and cajoled into accepting the goverments view on the issue.

Now? "Wikiwhat, sorry? Oh, that thing - isn't that dude a rapist?"

I pity the organisation and I pity the man. Mark my words in stone young sheep, 20 years from now history will look back on this organisation and man and recognise flawed heros before their time. That is if history remembers it.

No, it isn't. In fact not even the embassy itself is considered sovereign soil under international diplomacy law. The Embassy is borrowed, not owned. Actually this creates interesting legal situations since -neither- countries laws apply inside the embassy.

Furthermore neither Brittish nor International law recognises vehicles as under diplomatic immunity.

Even further, it's the host country, not the foreign one that has to accept applications for diplomatic immunity

Why are we using scare quotes for the word "rape"? Whether you believe the accusations, or whether you believe those accusations should count as rape, he would actually go on trial for two counts of rape... not for two counts of 'rape'.

Because it's not rape by any english language definition. There was no non-consensual or forced sex. It was sex with a broken condom. If she doesn't know it's broken, it's "Rape", just like the Arab who went to jail for consensual sex with an Israeli went to jail for "rape" because he didn't tell her she was an arab, and no jew would have sex with an arab. Quotes are appropriate. Not to mention the background of the woman who actually made the accusation -- after which she deleted her tweets about enjoying herself, and her blogpost on how to get revenge on a man you find cheating on you (which, IIRC, involved filing false rape claims).

Wasn't there something about him having sex with her while she was asleep? That isn't exactly consensual.

I know this is Slashdot and all, but even if you have no experience in the subject, at least consider the physics and biology involved.

Without drugs, staying asleep during sex just doesn't happen. Early morning drowsy sex often does happen (my partner calls it "waking her nicely", and between couples who've already established a sexual relationship, doesn't normally involve stopping to ask explicit permission.

If consent was withdrawn when she woke, then Assange should have done the same, but that's not what's being said in the accusations.

I support every woman's right to say "no" to sex at any time, and in normal circumstances I'd side with the Swedish girls involved. In this instance, the stories seem to be very carefully crafted to skirt the divide between outright prosecutable acts and legally consented sex. Crafted well enough in fact, to justify prosecution, while avoiding accusations of perjury.

I could be wrong, but that suggests to me that the women making the accusations might have been primed by legally-experienced third parties.

It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.

And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?

Quotes are appropriate.

Bullshit.

The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.

It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.

And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?

Even then, it needs to be under quotes. It denotes that this is the Swedish legal version of rape and not the regular definition of rape.

The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.

As opposed to the facts surrounding the case causing people to doubt the verasity of the claims. You know, like the fact that the first prosecutor who handled the case dropped all charges for (and again, quotes are appropriate here), "lack of evidence." Like the fact that the "victims" were proud to have slept with Mr. Assange, with one attending a party in his honor after supposedly being raped by him. Nor the fact that both women consented and were able to give consent, and only decided after the fact, and after meeting with each other, to file charges.

None of that matters; it's the use of quotation marks around the word "rape" that will cause of us to doubt his guilt.

No, it's your use of the scare quotes around rape that minimizes a rape, regardless of whether you agree with the definition.

It is not minimizing rape if the so-called crime does not even fit any reasonable definition of "rape." Under Sweden's definition, nearly anyone who has been sexually active for any significant length of time would have committed a "rape." I would be both a "victim" and a "rapist" myself if we applied that definition.

But you keep banging on me about the fact that I dislike the idea of playing semantic games with rape accusations.

So let's see, in your world, the moment someone is accused of rape, the case is settled -- regardless of whether or not we even have a common definition of the word.

You make it sound like Sweden is some kind of bassbackwards country. But they (and most of the EU) probably look at us and laugh just as loudly: "Rape charges because a 19 year old had sex with a 17 year old? Child pornography arrests because a 15 year old girl photographed herself nude with her phone??? Those Americans are such puritans afraid of their own bodies."

Right, so when a country makes overly expansive definitions of crimes, we should just go with their definition. Let's just use the most confusing, least meaningful definitions of crimes from all the countries in the world -- then everyone will be a criminal, and we can just dispense with the court system entirely.

If you are willing to forgive the following uses of scare quotes,

In Saudi Arabia, a woman is a "prostitute if she is in the company of a man who is not her husband. I guess that's our new def

I'm sorry, but they picked the guy; they made their bed, now they should sleep in it. If a woman goes to breakfast with a man after screwing him, the idea that it wasn't consensual is just ridiculous. When the woman only raises a stink after she finds out that he's been two-timing her, it's obviously a case of "filing false charges" on her part, and SHE should go to jail for that. Sorry, but if you sleep with a man you're not married to, there's no guarantee that he's being faithful to you, no matter wha

If I invite you to my house, and you come over and party and we have a great time and you go home afterwards, then later I find out that you were hanging out at the house of some dude I really hate, I can't suddenly claim you were trespassing.

The UK has an extradition treaty with the US that causes them to hand their own citizens over for crimes that aren't even crimes in the UK. The only way to avoid this is to prove you're going to be executed or civilly committed for life (that was the new one from a day ago). Yet you people think it's actually going to be easier to extradite him from Sweden, a country with very strong protections, no extradition treaty and a history of standing up to US requests.

And you believe this because it's a conspiracy theory that the US is just that diabolical. For all their bluster the US doesn't want to extradite him because they wouldn't be able to convict him of anything. The only reason they can even do anything to Manning is because they have an oath and the UCMJ to try him under.

This whole argument that they want to extradite him to Sweden so they can extradite him to the US should be insulting to the Swede's. He's going to end up in Sweden and this prosecutor that only charges people for rape and prefers to charge famous people (regardless of merits) for the publicity will likely charge him, he'll beat the charges and it'll be over. He won't be extradited to the US (they won't even ask) and you all will act like the publicity scared the US off and pretend none of this circus and accusations ever happened. It's so bloody silly it's not even funny.

First, everyone who helped paying for his bail won't see their money back, because Assange is not at his bail address, thus violating bail conditions. And political asylum in Ecuador? Seriously? That would actually mean that eventually he would have to move to Ecuador, and to stay there. I'd rather spend a bit of time in Sweden than a lifetime in Ecuador. I don't think Ecuador is too much fun when your money runs out.

False dilemma. It's not a question of a lifetime in Ecuador vs. a small bit of time in a Swedish jail. It's a question of a lifetime in Ecuador vs. a lifetime in a pound-me-in-the-ass USA prison, or worse, torture in Guantanamo.

That would be incorrect. You can detain and arrest people in diplomatic cars. You just can't detain those with diplomatic immunity. Ecuador would have to grant him that, and it would be difficult to do knowing that he is already wanted for questioning in a criminal investigation. Not impossible I suppose, but, it is twisting the intention of diplomatic immunity status. It's meant for diplomats, not for transporting criminals out of countries.

Diplomatic immunity isn't granted by the country the person is from, it is granted by the country the person is in. So if you are someone who is from the UK working at the embassy in the US in some capacity that would grant immunity they present you to be recognized to the US. The US then does so, if they want to (generally there is no problem with this) and you then have immunity.

Countries can't just randomly declare their citizens immune. It is an international treaty thing, not a unilateral thing. Country A says "We present you this person to be our ambassador and ask you to accept them as such," and country B says "We accept this person as your representative and grant them status as such."

So Ecuador could request Britain recognize him and grant him immunity, but such a thing would never be granted and would hurt their relations.

Best they can do is grant him asylum, but then it just depends on how bad the UK wants him. As you say the cars aren't some magic shield and that aside they could simply surround the plane they are taking him to with police, or refuse it the right to land in the first place.

He has been screwed from day one, and nobody's going to help him because the United States is the thug nobody will stand up to. The message we've been sending post-9/11 has been consistently "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and if you get in our way, we'll squish you like a bug." We've created an entire extrajudicial system to punish anyone who disagrees with the current regime, setup internment camps for political prisoners, and we torture and kill civilians and foreign nationals after judging them in secret in the President's own Star Chamber.

Everything else is really pretext. The 'rape' charges, the media spin and control, the reveal that our government has an entire task force dedicated to psyops to discredit anyone who disagrees with our foreign or domestic policies... the government is out of control. We've become the terrorists we sought to destroy... and frankly... until someone punches America in the face so hard they flinch, nothing's going to change.

Although that said, our huge military investments while our infrastructure rots away and our middle class disintegrates is creating the exact same socioeconomic conditions that led to the sudden coup de etat and dissolution of the USSR. I would not be surprised if there is a civil uprising here in the next 10 years and the United States breaks up into several smaller countries. This may in fact have been the long-term strategy of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. -- we have such a big ego and need for total dominance that we'll literally spend ourselves into a hole we can't get out of trying to maintain that, rather than acknowledging that we lost a fight and you know, that's okay sometimes (like every other country has had to). If all it took to bring down the largest military and economic power on the planet was a few airplanes flown into the side of buildings and some sabre rattling from some country built out of dirt claiming they're going to make nuclear weapons... It'll be the most effective force multiplication ever seen in warfare. Ever.

Yeah, 9-11 really brought the US "down". About two months later the Taliban were out of power in Afghanistan. Now OBL is shark bait, and Al Qaeda management positions are the least popular career move in the Muslim world.

And we've been in a recession pretty much every day since, the middle class is rapidly deteriorating into the working poor, the national debt is ballooning, and all those trillions that got sucked out of the economy to fund the war effort means our national infrastructure is going to pieces -- bridges are falling into rivers, half of New Orleans was wiped off the face of the planet and there's no money to repair it, there are mass water shortages across most of the southern part of the country, and the list goes on.

A real pyrric victory we got here. Woo. Go us.. number one... number one... number one in debt.

To be honest, that debt stuff started way before 9/11. you can blame Reagan for his failed economic theories, and Clinton (and the Senators and Representatives in office at the time) for repealing 60 years of finance law based on the hard lessons learned from the Great Depression that kept the banks properly in check.

But yeah. The country's going bankrupt. Hell, it already is bankrupt. It's just that because the defacto currency of trade is U.S. dollars, most of the world's going bankrupt along with us.

The whole point of islamic terrorism is to get the US out of their countries. This strategy will work because eventually we will not be able to pay the bills and the troops will have to come home. Like Rome, Britain, Spain, France, and Russia. All empires end the same way the people can't afford to keep paying troops deployed abroad.

Wow, this post went from "+4 Insightful" to "0 Troll" in the time it took me to get a glass of milk -- WTFLOL?!

"Army of fake social media friends to promote propaganda

It's recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people."

Statements made by his own lawyer about what Assange did talk about actions that are legally rape, both in Sweden and in the UK. That's not my opinion, but has been said by other lawyers.

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

I don't agree that he should be extradited just for questioning, I think there should be charges first, but the courts have upheld the extradition so Assange should just go and answer the questions. Of course, based on the above quotes, he is guilty and does not want to go and face justice.

In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence! On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied. In addition to extradition from Sweden being far less likely than from the UK, if he were in Sweden then both the UK and Swedish governments would have to agree for further extradition to the US to take place. Picking Ecuador as a place to flee to just proves that Assange is a hypocrite. Ecuador has a rubbish record on freedom of speech.

I support Wikileaks. I stand for freedom of speech. That doesn't change what Assange did.

In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence!

The UK's extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender ('conditional release') clause. The UK's judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied.

Sweden has in the recent past violated international treaties in relation to surrendering foreign nationals into US custody to be interrogated and tortured (case of extraordinary rendition, Agiza v. Sweden at the European Court of Human Rights). Furthermore, Amnesty International and the UN Committee against Torture criticised Sweden because it rendered two refugees to the CIA who were then tortured under the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak. (A documentary with the testimony of tortured refugees who had been granted asylum and then rendered to the CIA by Sweden was aired on Swedish television on 5 October 2011.

The charges aren't alleged, but real and confirmed. Assange is charged with rape, not 'rape', and the allegations against him will be proven or discredited along with the charges in court, should it come to that.

Well, Assange stayed in the UK for 18 months on the grounds that Sweden would be much more US-friendly than even the UK, and would immediately extradite him. It looks like he now wants to do everything to ensure that nobody can ever falsify that theory. It would be terrible for him if the Swedish authorities just released him after two hours of questioning. The guy has pretty much painted himself into a corner by now.

...for instance here [guardian.co.uk], I've come to the conclusion that Assange is not a nice person. But whether he is a rapist or just an ass is not yet known. So what on earth should society do in such cases?

Oh, I have this radical new idea; lets have a meeting where one side presents a case in favour of him being a rapist and the other side presents a case against it. We can call this a trial, and it should occur in the same area where the alleged incidence occurred. Assange has up until now tried all manner of ways to avoid this type of meeting, but several levels of English judges have ALL declared that he cannot avoid it any longer.

Sweden is not some banana republic with a dodgy legal system and mass corruption. It is a well-formed and reasonably well functioning system, comparing favourably to most. It is considered one of the least corrupt [guardian.co.uk] countries in the world.

Sweden does, however, tend to have quite strict women's rights and sexual abuse laws. In general the idea is that all parts of a sexual encounter should be consensual (not just whether to do it or not, but also how to do it, i.e. if a woman agreed to sex but not S&M, if you force her down and whip her while doing it, this is most likely rape), force isn't necessary to make an encounter illegal (just making it seem hard to get out of it, or simply ignoring pleas not to, is enough), and a woman's continued interaction with the man afterwards isn't seen as definite proof that the encounter was consensual. For instance, if you're in a position of power, and/or the woman's career or other ambitions depended on her continued interaction with you, or the woman may just feel threatened or blame herself afterwards. It is quite common for victims of abuse to assume it was their own fault, and it is very common for victims of abuse to keep seeing their abuser.

So far, Assange has resisted attempts at deciding his guilt or innocence, based on an argument that was very self-serving, and unlikely to be correct, and UK judges have called him on it. Now let him have his day in court in Sweden.